Quote of the day—Sidney Powell

There has been a massive and coordinated effort to steal this election from We The People of the United States of America to delegitimize and destroy votes for Donald Trump. To manufacture votes for Joe Biden. They’ve done it in every way imaginable, from having dead people vote in record numbers, to absolutely fraudulently creating ballots that exist only for voting for Biden. We’ve identified over 450,000 ballots that miraculously only have a vote for Joe Biden on them and no other candidate.

Sidney Powell
November 8, 2020
We’ve Identified 450,000 Ballots that Miraculously ONLY have a Vote for Joe Biden” – Sidney Powell Drops a BOMB on Sunday Morning Futures (Video)

[We live in interesting times.—Joe]


33 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Sidney Powell

  1. I suspected that there were large numbers of Biden only votes, and while I may not be big on conspiracies, neither am I big on coincidences. I just ran some numbers and in Wisconsin, Georgia and Pennsylvania the Biden only votes would be enough to make the difference. That is very coincidental to me. If they stated a range of numbers in that video, I used the low number. Biden only votes would not have changed AZ or Michigan using their numbers.

    Recounts will not fix or find problems here. It has to be audits, and in many cases, I’m very concerned that the ability to audit is or has been destroyed. We rely on observers to keep this process fair and it is apparent that they were excluded at key times. Ballots and their certification forms have been separated etc.

    My ability to chase numbers is somewhat limited, but you and some of your readers are good at it. I’m interested in: A) Are the allegations of Biden only ballots legit? B) Are presidential only ballots as big a statistical anomaly as I suspect they are? C) What are the incidences of that in other states?

    I’m also curious if anything further has been done in the area of the 13K centenarian votes that were supposedly on that one document that disappeared?

    As one of those uneducated, white males, my use of statistical analysis has been limited to basic comparisons and techniques. Can some of you guys that work with numbers a lot discuss the validity of Benford’s law and how useful it may or may not be in court cases?

    For some reason, I don’t get comment notifications from here.

    • I have a MS in statistics, but I never heard of it until now. It looks like it is a specialized non parametric distribution test for anomalies.

      Wikipedia has a write up that includes the statement:

      In the United States, evidence based on Benford’s law has been admitted in criminal cases at the federal, state, and local levels.[33]

    • I’m not a numbers guy, but one of my buddies is (does software and analysis for steel companies internationally). According to him, a deviation by a factor of 2 covers 97% of margin of error. Bidens numbers follow a deviation factor of 5, which is unheard of pretty much everywhere.

      Either way, something smells fishy, and I don’t think it’s the fish.

    • A great question to ask is whether this pattern has been seen in any states that Trump carried by a substantial margin (and was expected to). Say, places like Alabama or West Virginia. Or in states that Biden carried as expected, like MA or NY or CA.

      If this pattern is only observed in states where it makes the difference who wins, then that makes it smellier. If it’s seen across a wide range of states, then it could conceivably be ok even if it seems strange.

  2. Once again. They had to find out the unknown, (Trump’s actual turnout), before they could act. As the standard amount of voter fraud wasn’t going to work. That’s why Hillary lost. Hubris and underestimation.
    The in your face stupidity of it is the only way it could go down. And they don’t care.
    When Biden said they had assembled the worlds greatest voter fraud team. That wasn’t a gaffe.
    The only good thing about it is that we can dispense with the idea of conspiracy theory. It truly is a conspiracy. And now we know the players.

    • It was a gaffe only in the sense of truth out of the mouth of an idiot. Beijing Biden not only insults people he shouldn’t as a adult, he blabs about secret plans for crimes, and that blabbing becomes statements against interest, which would come in for a criminal trial if he wasn’t at the level of a Chinese Warlord in terms of crimes, fraud and collusion.

  3. the dimmo’s and leftists control the computers. we simply do not.

    i suggest all read “sandworm” by andy greenberg, anchor books, 2020 how the russian hackers described as “sandworms” have discovered how to hack into computers that control the machines that count, and turn on and off, by computer command. they have discovered how to get into “closed systems.”

    if we are to continue to exist as a political force we may very well have to learn from b.l.m. and antifa, and learn how to do things the old fashioned way …. those ways are crude, & messy, but have proven effective over time.

    it is time, i think, to get our “protest mojo” in gear, and learn how to burn, loot, cudgel and beat our opponents into submission. i suggest a start with journalists, pollsters and union thugs.

    • I don’t think multiple opposing groups burning, looting, and beating each other is a path to anything more pleasant than the dark ages.

      The first response must be the enforcement of laws against anyone who engages in such criminal activity.

      If law enforcement, at the police level or prosecution level, fails to protect innocent life and property then people should use legal means to defend themselves and their property. They may be prosecuted by communist district attorneys (the Kyle Rittenhouse case come to mind) but I would like to believe the juries will address that issue. If they don’t then we can have this chat again with more data.

  4. “closed systems” means voting machines, in this context. in this context, the fix was in, and the method simple. take votes away from one, and give to another. it showed up several times when biden suddenly received a block of 100,000 votes, all at once.

    no, biden did not “misspeak” when he said the fix was in.

    p.s. and, as far as emulating b.l.m. and antifa, …. , why not, they seem to enjoy themselves, seem to be invigorated by it.

    • In NH, ballots are required to be on paper.

      This should be the nationwide rule. No machines handling the voting. (Machine scanning of paper ballots is fine — because you can do a recount by eyeball if needed.) While it’s certainly possible to commit fraud on paper ballots, it’s much easier when the supposed votes are merely bits in some PC. Especially when that PC runs Windows and other secret software.

      If we can’t get this much, at least the minimum standard should be that all the software running on voting machines is published. It doesn’t actually have to be “open source” in the Linux sense, but it needs to be “open for inspection”. This has long been the standard of quality for security critical software. Open design, open implementation.

  5. The Daily Show has a good reminder of how the tables were turned last time, when it was the Republicans saying “everything’s fine, nothing to see here, move along”:


    So I think we can pretty much all agree our election system sucks donkey balls and needs to be rebuilt. At least there’s that common ground to stand on….

    • Oh, so you’re simple accusing the other side of doing the same thing.
      The Daily Show?
      when you see bullshit word salad like this:

      Why did Trump do better with Black men in 2020 than in 2016? Tressie McMillan Cottom explains: https://on.cc.com/3n4HdCH
      Image may contain: 2 people, text that says

      one more time:

      That level of crap-for-brains does your purported argument little good.

      I think the common ground is that the democrat party is filled with people who are as stupid as they believe we are.

      • Tu Quoque is the term for the logical fallacy he used here.
        It doesn’t work when you tell your momma that ALL the other kids are doing it, and it doesn’t work if you tell the judge that you were not the only speeder.
        I think that last sentence is right. People tend to think that other people are like them. Honest people think others will be honest, and cheaters believe that everyone else is out to cheat them.

    • OK, I’ll bite. 2 years from now we all get national, no BS voter ID cards. we take two days to vote. Show up, show your id. get a ballot and vote. one person, one vote. All interested parties can watch the process up close and personal. Loud and proud of your vote.
      Think the commies will go for it? How bout you?

      • Better still, one day to vote, but it’s a holiday. Yes, I know that Veteran’s day is perilously close.

        • All mail-in ballots. Postmarked by the day of the election. No walk-ins anywhere. Nice paper record we can double-check. No lines, no machines with privately-owned, secret code, no intimidation at the polls. Though this of course requires that the government stop using the USPS budget as a piggy bank for other stuff, and get rid of that stupid pension funding requirement (that’s designed to sink it so it can be privatized).

          And there are multiple ways paper ballots could be made more secure than they are today. We just have to all be willing to fight for an election system that can’t be gamed. And today there are too many people in both parties that like the option of gaming it.

          • If the USPS is treated as important, and ballot mail as a priority, postmarks should be the least interesting security feature. By end of day on election day, all ballots are on trucks going to the government. Maybe when they arrive they get marked with a non-counterfeitable “received” mark of some sort. Ballots that don’t show up by the morning of the next day, regardless of postmark, get extra scrutiny.

            So then we’re to the second level security, the ballots themselves. We secure currency with lots of different methods that are hard to fake, why not ballots?

          • Right. The correct answer, if mail in is to be permitted, is: received by the end of business on election day.
            Think of this as a very undemanding IQ test: if you’re not capable of getting your vote in soon enough to get it in by the deadline, you aren’t functional enough to vote.

          • As we found out in Oregon. How do you know who in the hell your sending a ballot to? And where?
            I’ve personally had them send me, my wife, and my dead mother-in-law two ballots each. Just on a PO.box change.
            And the idea that government can sort out the bad ones just got shot to hell.
            Mail-in voting is why were having to have this discussion. About proven fraud! And there is no way to secure it.
            Plus, it allows people least interested in understanding how government should work a voice. Thus, larger control by media. How’s that working out? You do realize your trying to elect a senile criminal, and a hooker to the most powerful office in the world, John? All because of your feelings? Joe Biden with nuclear launch codes? Really? Your insane.
            All brought to us by mail-in ballots.

          • NO mail-in ballots, or only a very few for valid absentee voting, like military foreign deployments, because you lose the chain of custody. MAYBE electronic voting if we can get a proper blockchain tech implemented by someone we trust. But that “trust” is pretty hard to come by. Consider the “Dominion” software – it was written by a foreign corporation with cheating not just in mind, but built in to it. I suspect that if it is properly deconstructed by a forensic white-hat in court it can be shown that every election in the US that ever used it should be invalidated and done over by hand-count of new paper ballots under VERY close scrutiny.

          • The problem with voting security mechanisms is that we have a long and extensive track record showing that the left hates any and all such schemes. From voter ID to deadlines established by law, everything and anything designed to protect the integrity of the vote is fought in courts and in the media.
            For that matter, just today there was this interesting item.
            1. AG Barr directs the DOJ to investigate significant allegations of fraud that come accompanied by reasonable supporting evidence.
            2. The head of the DOJ election fraud bureau resigns. (I say good riddance; if you can’t go along with Barr’s orders you don’t have the moral integrity to be in that job or for that matter anywhere in the government.)
            3. Sen. Durbin (D-IL) declares that Barr’s directives are horrible.
            The point this raises: if you oppose investigating fraud, there is only one plausible explanation why you would do so: because you intend to commit fraud or have done so in the past, and you dislike being caught at it.

          • Well, yes. My proposal assumes that people are rational and make intelligent long-term decisions.

            I crack myself up….

          • I make the same assumptions. But what I don’t assume is that they are honest.
            The problem is this: if you’re willing to be dishonest / criminal, there are lots of ways to mess with the election systems. And if you are dishonest, there are lots of ways to abuse the courts and their fellow traveler judges to enable such abuses.

            That’s what I was talking about. I never said or intended anything about lack of rationality, only lack of honesty.

          • >> if you’re willing to be dishonest / criminal, there are lots of ways to mess with the election systems.

            But we have an entire discipline of cryptography devoted to foiling criminals trying to do bad things. And it’s pretty successful when used to the fullest extent. Does require that people are willing to give up a little convenience for security, though, e.g. 2-factor authentication.

            When I was working at Microsoft I had lunch with Josh Benaloh to talk about election security after I saw him give a talk. He’s pretty convinced we can do a good job at it. For example: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/verifiable-secret-ballot-elections/

          • Thanks for supplying the link. I started reading the paper but it’s too long for the amount of time I have available today. Can you tell me how fake and/or stolen identity voters are guarded against?

          • That particular paper doesn’t cover that, it’s just focused on the cryptography of the ballots themselves. If you check the breadcrumb in the navigation at the top you can see his profile and other papers/presentations that cover other areas of cryptographic fraud prevention. Don’t have a link to a specific paper handy at the moment (he’s been doing this for 25 years, so there are many).

          • True ‘dat.

            Which gets us back to me cracking myself up with the thought of People These Days making rational long term decisions, particularly people in government. The hardest part of securing the vote will be getting people to agree that the vote needs to be secure, and then committing to the work necessary to make it so.

    • We had a discussion, my brother and my Sister-in-Law over Labor Day. We talked about the impeachment process and how Trump prevented additional witnesses from being added after the impeachment had gone to the finder of fact, i.e. the Senate who would vote on removal. My Sister-in-Law said something similar to what you said, in that she said that Clinton wanted a witness added but the mean old Republicans refused. After asking five times for the name of the people he wanted added as witnesses, to which I got silence, I explained that he wasn’t impeached for lying on TV, which was her theory, or at the head of the stairs in the residence wing of the White House, but for lying in a court proceeding. That was the thing the Arkansas Bar suspended his law license for.
      But more directly to your assertion that there is some how some sort of reciprocity to the assertions of four years ago; If you make the claim that something untoward was going on, it is your burden and duty as the accuser to show the evidence. Justice Jackson in about 1949 said that the US legal system does not require the defendant to do the Plaintiff’s work for it. No evidence more than the Steele creative writing sample was ever produced or could be produced, and all the indictments and imprisonments of the various people were for things that did not involve Trump and which were either technical or were ordinarily punished with a fine, but in any event occurred before they worked on Trump’s campaign. The sole exceptiion was General Flynn, and he was charged with lying to an FBI agent. YOU could be charged with the same crime if you tell an agent that you never went to, say, Cincinnati, but you were there 35 years ago and stayed overnight in a motel. Lying of course, in the words of lawyers explaining their line of questions, goes to credibility and knowledge of guilt. So you are STUCK.

  6. @John Schussler. “I crack myself up”. That explains a lot John. I mean your ideas and all. You should move to Oregon. Cracks legal there.

    • Sorry Joe, John, I thought you were being sarcastic.
      But speaking of giving up a little convenience. We already have to have a “star card”, “real ID”, solid ID to get into certain government buildings. Or fly on a plane. Why not just register with that, and show up and vote with it to?
      Ends a lot of the BS games we see being played these days on computer systems. Very expensive computer systems at that.
      I mean, this is a problem that much of the 3rd. world has cured. In a very simple manner.
      I will agree,(if this is what you meant), the real problem is getting cheaters in the system to admit there’s a problem to fix.
      Also. to me, if your not interested enough to find the facts of a matter. Then go to a local polling place to seek a remedy.
      What you think shouldn’t matter to the rest of us either.

Comments are closed.